If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured — for the very first time in history — that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida. …

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. …

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help — after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world. …

Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front [an al Qaeda affiliate].

The only consistency to Obama’s Middle East policy is that he is always in favor of destabilization likely to result in radical Islamists taking power. So to answer Fisk’s question, of course Obama knows.

A few more questions need to be asked:

If it is true that it is actually Obama’s terrorist friends and not the Syrian government who have been using poison gas as some suggest, can we bomb the terrorists instead?

If local problems in faraway countries between fractions that are both hostile to the USA are worth risking a major confrontation with Russia over, why don’t we just invade and occupy the entire planet?

If Congress has no say even in whether we go to war anymore, why don’t we just disband it?

If a president can plunge us into a war that only 9% of the public supports, why do we keep calling this a representative republic?

If it is not treason to support your country’s worst enemy, what would be?

On a tip from Do Bears Sh** in the Woods? Cross-posted at Moonbattery.